Standish v Standish – The Final Decision on Disputes over Matrimonialisation of Property

When determining the division of assets upon separation, non-matrimonial property should not be subject to the ‘sharing principle’, although it can be subject to the principles of needs and compensation. This is essentially means, if property is deemed to be ‘non-matrimonial’ then it will not be subject to be shared between the parties, unless one party’s needs cannot be met without the inclusion of this asset.

The sharing principle

The sharing principle is a fundamental concept of family law and meant that matrimonial assets should generally be divided equally between spouses upon divorce, unless there are reasons to depart from equality.

Background of Standish -v- Standish

The parties married in 2005 and had two children. They lived in Switzerland and Australia before moving to England in 2010. The main issue of the Standish case was a transfer of circa £77 million from the husband to the wife in 2017, as part of a tax planning strategy. The funds were to be transferred into a trust,  however the funds were still held in the wife’s sole name when the parties commenced divorce proceedings in April 2020.

The wife argued that as the funds were held in her sole name at the time of the divorce, they should be shared with her equally, whereas the husband argued that the funds were his from before the marriage and therefore non-matrimonial.

At the first instance hearing at the High Court, Mr Justice Moor found that the transfer of the non-matrimonial asset by the husband to the wife had ‘matrimonialised’ them and therefore made them available for sharing. The wife was awarded £45m, which represented a 60/40 split in the husband’s favour of the matrimonial property.

The wife appealed the decision and the husband cross appealed. The husband was successful in his appeal and the Court of Appeal determined that the husband’s transfer to the wife of the funds did not ‘matrimonialise’ the asset. The wife’s share was then reduced to £25m from the original £45m awarded at the previous hearing.

Supreme Court decision

On 2^nd July 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed the wife’s appeal by unanimous decision. They confirmed that the Court of Appeal’s approach to the wife’s entitlement under the sharing principle of £25m was correct.

What is matrimonial and non-matrimonial?

The Supreme Court stated that the sharing principle applies to matrimonial property. Essentially, the ownership of an asset at the time of divorce is not determinative of how it will be shared. The sharing principle should be on an equal basis, unless there can be a justified departure from equality.

Further, the Supreme Court stated that the sharing principle does not apply to non-marital property and that there is no legal right to share property which is found to be non-matrimonial.

However, non-matrimonial property can become matrimonial (‘matrimonialised’). In determining what property has been matrimonialised, what matters is how the parties have dealt with non-matrimonial assets and whether over time they have treated the asset as shared. The test for ‘matrimonialisation’ is as follows:

‘Matrimonialisation occurs where there is intention by the contributor to share non-marital property, coupled with treatment by the parties of this non-marital property as shared over time’

What this means for separating couples now

The Supreme Court’s judgment is a significant moment in family law history and provides a clearer framework for practitioners when dealing with finances on divorce. It will be important to consider how the parties have dealt with particular assets throughout the marriage and how they have been treated.